Consequences of President’S Rule

Introduction

Imposition of Direct rule from the Central Government and suspension of State Government has been included in President’s rule. This depicts that the Central Government can take direct control of a state and an appointed Governor can be known as the constitutional head of that respective state. If Vidhan Sabha has been seen to be either prorogued or dissolved, Election commission can conduct another re-election within six months of this situation. This rule has been known to not impact citizens of a state however if this rule has been seen to be imposed on a state, major government decisions, major policy decisions of that state have been seen to be postponed until the next government has been formed and this rule has been revoked.

Discussion

President’s Rule

President’s Rule has been known to be the imposition of central government rules and suspension of state government. During imposition of President’s Rule, a Governor has been appointed to question the state and that respective Governor becomes the constitutional head of that respective state. President’s rule, though has been known to be revoked only if a new government is formed, this rule has also been seen to have a duration of a minimum of six months and can be extended to a maximum of three years based on rules mentioned in Article 356. Revocation of the President’s rule can be done at any time of its whole duration by the corresponding president and in this scenario; approval from parliament is not needed by the respective president. Depending on the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, it can be seen that extension of President’s rule can only be done over a year with a gap of six months in between. This expansion can be seen to be approved depending on two scenarios and these are when elections cannot be conducted in a questioned state that has been certified by the Election Commission and when a national emergency has been implemented throughout the country or in that state. On November 12, 2019, Bhagat Singh Koshyari, Governor of Maharashtra imposed President’s rule in the state as a result of a previous election that was seen to be failing in forming a government.

President’s Rule Article

Article 356 of Indian Constitution has been known as the President’s rule. This Article has been known to be based on Section 93 of “Government of India Act, 1935”.  The President’s Rule depicts that this rule can be imposed on any state of India based on failure of Constitutional actions. Article 356 has also depicted that this rule can be imposed on a state in case of if that respective state fails to comply with all regulations provided by the Union. According to Article 356, imposing President’s rule on a state simply means that a state government cannot administer the respective state and the central government directly administers the questioned state through a Governor. Article 356 has been seen to govern the President’s rule; however, this Article has also been seen to provide wide powers to the Central Government to impose its authority on state governments. Article 356 has mainly been created focusing on maintaining unity and integrity of India however in many cases it has been seen to be used blatantly to outdo state governments which have been seen to be ruled by opposite political parties of central government.

Based on this misuse of Article 356, Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) has been seen to recommend that the Governor of a state should responsibly take actions in states where President’s rule has been imposed. Many recommendations have been seen to be made to control misuse of Article 356 however; these recommendations have yet to be implemented thoroughly.

President’s Rule in State

Article 356 of Indian Constitution has been seen to provide authority to Indian president to impose President’s rule in different states when being advised by the Union Ministers’ Council. The President, before imposing this rule on a state, considers some conditions which can be helpful in defining the situation of a state and causes of the President’s rule in the State. The President considers imposing the president’s rule if the president considers a problem which has arisen in a state that cannot be solved by the respective state government. The President has also been seen to impose president’s rule on a state if that particular state has been seen to be unable to elect a leader as Chief Minister. President’s rule in State has also been seen to be imposed if there has been a breakdown of coalition that Chief Minister has minority support in house and that respective Chief Minister fails to prove majority within allocated time period. The President can also impose President’s rule in a state if elections in that state have been postponed due to some natural phenomena. President’s rule in a state has been seen to be imposed until a new government is elected.

Conclusion

This assignment concluded a clear concept of consequences of President’s rule in India. Article which governs President’s rule in India has also been concluded in this assignment. Considerations that are looked into before the President’s rule is imposed on a state have also been concluded in this assignment. Some frequently asked questions with their proper answers have also been concluded in this assignment.